Caller had this question and it's an interesting one. The answers, in my mind, is that it depends. It depends on which conspiracy theory, it depends on who the person is, and more about the context.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts in a reply!
▶️ DTube ▶️ IPFS
The first thing you have got to do is stop using that jaded old CIA expression.
There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory.
There are conspiracies.
There are theories.
There are facts.
Discern between the theories and the facts, that is all that needs to be done.
You sound like one of those conspiracy theory truthers! Run for the hills!!!! The Deep State global agenda is going to take down the world! Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a sheep because I KNOW the truth!!! Beware and be scared people!!! Be very afraid!!’ They are out to get you!!!
@rawdawg, I think people gain from not ridiculing other people.
https://steemit.com/liberty/@teamsteem/thank-you-dan-larimer-you-are-a-great-mentor
I think you would gain from not opening your mouth into a conversation you have nothing to do with. Last, I checked I wasn’t talking to you.
Of course there are conspiracy theories. They aren't theories in a scientific sense, but they are theories.
Well the term "theory" juxtaposed with "conspiracies" is also not that helpful because many extremely well supported scientific theories remain "just theories" because they are not of nature that they can be "proved" like 1+1=2. One crucial difference between scientific theories and conspiracy theories - the former can be used to make predictions that will be found to be true and useful - not in disagreement with facts, and novel. Conspiracy theories don't do that. They are just models developed by overzealous pattern matchers and they overfit the data. Therefore they have the feature that they are extremely poor about making accurate or useful predictions, and they are also very brittle. New data often has to be thrown away as fake and part of the conspiracy, or the "theory" has to be made even more elaborate and complex, adding new hidden variable type features that no one can disprove. How convenient.
For some reason UFO conspiracy theories, pizzagate conspiracy theories, round-earth conspiracy theories etc. etc. continue to fail to produce any actual new and useful results, no aliens have been demonstrated to exist, no Clintons in child-trafficking rings have been busted (even though DJT has all the power to do whatever Alex Jones asks him to make such busts happen), and no ice-wall or edge of the Earth has been proved to exist (should be damned easy right?). Oh, but of course, there is a conspiracy to hide all the evidence and keep everyone silent (when the government demonstrably has more leaks than a Welshman has leeks). Okay, that's the number one sign that a conspiracy theory is not a theory at all - because it cannot be used to make new and useful predictions because... conspiracies! Might as well call bullshit on all of reality at that point.
Therefore I say these aren't theories. I don't know what they are - hypotheses, conjectures, dogma, suppositions, speculation, riddles, tall tales, myths, or just plain bullshit. Perhaps we can recycle some terminology popular on the right and just call them alternative-theories? Un-theories? Or how about "spaghetti theories" as in Spaghetti Westerns (faked Westerns style movies made on a shoestring in Europe).
I like the clarity of your comment, and you're 100% right on.
Your post has definitely earned an upvote!
Hey @davidpakman, if you haven't seen this it is relevant.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth
Like I said, it's an uphill battle when YouTube is conspiring to promote conspiracy theories.
Yep, I recently read this article. Crazy stuff, right?
The term "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss and ridicule those who don't buy the official version of certain events, to shut them up and shut down any chance of a dialogue. It is important to have a forum where the raw facts and empirical data (not opinions, theories or interpretations) can be explored fully, from which as accurate a narrative as possible can be extracted. No topic should be banned, however controversial. When it comes to the truth, no event should be above reexamination if new information comes to light, even if it leads us to the very uncomfortable task of having to question and reassess the premises upon which we have constructed our reality.
Truth, facts and accurate information have nothing to do with who the person is or the context. Preselecting who is credible or not before they get to make their case is not good science. As to the context, it will privilege "facts" that justify the context.
In the spirit of free speech and true scientific inquiry, it is important to give a platform to all, not with the agenda of making them look like idiots but with a genuine curiosity that maybe, lust maybe, they might have something worthwhile to offer.
That exact explanation is used by conspiracy theorists to try to legitimize absurd ideas.
And it seems you just made my point that all one needs is to call someone a "conspiracy theorist" to delegitimize anything they have to say.
(Are we caught up in some circular debate that could go on ad infinitum?)
A couple of observations:
If your a priori bias is:" conspiracy theorists are a bunch of nutters with half-baked ideas", then any argument you make and conclusion you draw will be consistent with that premise.
We humans tend to reject that which does not fit in our already established internal schema and beliefs.
In order to transcend these limitations, we must be aware of our biases and question the validity of our premises, and have the courage to withstand the discomfort of changing our ideas and opinions when warranted by new information.
In your work as a journalist, I would encourage you to provide a platform for dissident voices with an open mind. If the ideas are absurd, they'll fall of their own weight! As to the facts, they speak for themselves.
If the position is irrational, it will be derided as a conspiracy theory, because it is. If the position can be shown to be rational, it will cease to be a conspiracy theory. It's as simple as that.
What you say is logical, however it is not as simple as that. Rational and accurately documented positions can be labeled as "conspiracy theories" if they do not conform to the official or politically correct narrative. Conversely, the fact that something is official confers to it some legitimacy. An interesting example of that is the NIST report of the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11. Despite the egregious inaccuracies of its methodology and conclusions that have been identified (and disproved empirically) by a number of engineers and research scientists (including ex NIST scientists who worked on the report themselves!) the former gains its credibility from the government seal of approval whereas the latter are ridiculed as conspiracy theorists.
The whole field of influence, propaganda and psychological manipulation makes for fascinating investigation indeed, regardless of whether one personally believes that Martians are conspiring to enslave planet Earth or that our governments couldn't possibly tell any lies.
I see what you're saying. Every idea should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of its popularity, endorsement, and (to a certain extent) civility. I agree.
I like how you expressed it so clearly :-)
Good question David and you are in the right place to ask considering Steemit is loaded with conspiracy nuts. There is no point attempting to debunk conspiracy theories as those who know the “Truths” will fight tirelessly to defend their position even when provided evidence to the contrary. They also typically have 3rd party “research” from unreliable sources, claiming this evidence to be “proof” of their positions.
Yes, no shortage of conspiracy theories on most internet discussion platforms
Conspiracy theories are fun to debate with friends/allies, but it is usually futile to debate with people you have no association with.
It depends, but generally no. It’s a pathological compulsion for most.
I think whether or not you should attempt to debunk conspiracy theories depends on your goals. It would definitely be entertaining, and if you delve deep into them you just might find a kernel of truth or something interesting like that. And like you said, if absurd notions are not challenged enough, they just might gain enough traction to cause something bad (see: Pizzagate).
Trying to reason with the hardcore nutjobs is certainly a lost cause, though.
Every one is trying to find an answer to this question.May be fbi or cia into this or some other party.Who knows.@upvoted
Some of them are hard to debunk. I ve given alot of thought to some. Some industries are over represented by different segments of the population. I don't think there is anything wrong with admitting success in some areas. I personally do not get into any conversation when it comes to religion. It's just to easy to say the wrong thing while could be true maybe looked at as hurtful or taken the wrong way. Of course online if you look hard enough about all of us are attacked in one way or the other. I try to follow and speak about the positives in life and don't get to hung up on who's making what or what religion they are in. By the way I am a older left handed man. Look hard enough and probably somebody online hates me to. Glad to see you here on Steemit David and I highly recommend this community to all Ttubers and citizens alike. Go STEEM
Most people, in my experience, are not looking for education. They are looking for confirmation. Generally I consider this question to be covered under the prime directive and let the primitives be.